Thread: Eugenie Sage

Originally Posted by chainsaw

Thanks @nick_D - how do we get these facts into the public media & focus ? Seems like the Nats are running with the "anti cull" theme (atm), so how do we harness that. You'd think they'd be all over data and facts like this - as a means to politically embarrass the other mob ?! We may as well use the "political process " to some end good

I don't really know man. I think Greg and Willy did a good job of talking about the lack or robust science. TBH I believe national is just being 'oppositionist'. They seem to be in a fair amount of internal turmoil and are jùst searching for a bandwagon to jump on. With that in mind it's not surprising the argument wasn't well though out.

That being said, the lack of consultation angle has merit too.its probably what the court case will be based on.

I think the best use for excerpts from the various studies is in educating the general public. Getting the average urbanite to understand this is a real issue, not just some nutbags selfishly trying to preserve easy hunting. Show that hunting and conservation aren't mutually exclusive in New Zealand.

We want to control tahr too, but we want it done in a robust and scientific manner.

The link below is for the 2014 study which is as far as I can find, the latest comprehensive(ish) study done on the impact of tahr for anyone who is interested. It shows we need a reduction of numbers in some areas but it's far from doom and gloom.

https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&so...zbllRfmcpzNk5o